No. L-57205. December 14, 1981.

THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF DOMINADOR DANAN, represented by its Administratrix, ADORACION F. VDA.
DE DANAN, and the HEIRS of the late DOMINADOR DANAN, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. FELIPE V. BUEN

________________

* SECOND DIVISION

353

VOL. 110, DECEMBER 14, 1981

353

The Intestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

CAMINO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch II,
Guagua, Pampanga, BENITO MANALANSAN, et al., respondents.

Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Claims against the estate; Estoppel; Laches; Filing by administratrix
of an answer to claimants’ contingent claims and asking for postponement of the hearing for
presentation of her rebuttal evidence, constitutes estoppel and laches.—In the interregnum the
administratrix had acquiesced to the entertainment of the claim by filing an answer thereto on July 11,
1974, and again by asking for postponement of the October 3, 1974, hearing wherein she was to present
her rebuttal evidence. She is not only estopped by her conduct but laches also bar her claim.

Same; Same; Same; Probate court with discretion to allow claims against the estate presented beyond
the period previously fixed pro-vided they are filed within one (1) month from expiration of period but
not beyond the date of entry of order of distribution.—Moreover, Rule 86, Sec. 2, of the Rules of Court
gives the probate court discretion to allow claims presented beyond the period previously fixed
provided that they are filed within one month from the expiration of such period but in no case beyond
the date of entry of the order of distribution. The contingent claim of the Manalansans was filed within
both periods.
Same; Same; Same; Hearings; Full dress hearings necessary to contest contingent claims against the
estate.—The probate court should not have been satisfied with merely asking for objections or
comments from the administratrix but it should have conducted a full dress hearing on the claim by
using its coercive powers if necessary.

PETITION to review the order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch II.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

The proceedings in the lower court which are narrated below were culled mostly from the expediente of
the case because the annexes to the petition are not well organized.

354

354

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The lntestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

Dominador Danan died on November 7, 1970, in Lubao, Pampanga. He did not leave a will. Service
Engineers, Inc. which claimed to be a creditor of the deceased filed a petition dated November 12, 1971,
in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga praying that letters of administrative of the intestate estate
of Dominador Danan be issued in favor of Engineer Carlos B. Navarro. The petition was docketed as
Special Proceeding No. G-22. It was, however, Adoracion F. Vda. de Danan, widow of the deceased, who
was appointed administratrix of the estate.

On November 13, 1973, the court issued an order directing all persons having money claims against the
estate to file them within six (6) months after the date of the first publication of the order which was
December 10, 1973. On June 12, 1974, Benito Manalansan and Ines Vitug Manalansan filed a contingent
claim in the amount of P98,411.17 plus interest in anticipation of a deficiency after the spouses shall
have foreclosed a real estate mortgage which the deceased and his wife had executed in their favor. On
July 11, 1974, the administratrix filed an answer to the contingent claim wherein she admitted the
existence of the debt which was secured by a mortgage; however, she prayed that the contingent claim
be denied because it had no basis for the mortgage had not yet been foreclosed and ergo there was no
deficiency.

Notice was given by the Clerk of Court on July 26, 1974, that the hearing on the contingent claim would
be held on September 2, 1974, and in fact there was such a hearing on that day wherein only the
claimants in the person of Ines Vitug Manalansan appeared. Atty. Juanito I. Vitug, counsel for the
administratrix, did not appear because according to the interpreter he was sick or attending to his
fishpond which had overflowed according to a son of the administratrix. At the request of Atty. Lorenzo
P. Navarro who represented the Manalansans, the court allowed the claim to be heard without
prejudice to the right of the administratrix to present rebuttal evidence. In that hearing, Mrs.
Manalansan testified that she and her husband had a final judgment against the Danans for P62,574.80
with 12% interest compounded annually, 10% of the amount due and unpaid for attorney’s fees and
moral

355

VOL. 110, DECEMBER 14, 1981

355

The Intestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

damages in the amount of P5,000; that on June 6, 1974, the debt had grown to P264,121.17; and that if
the market value of the properties mortgaged and the P5,000 award for moral damages be deducted
from P264,121.17, the net amount due would be P98,411.17. The following exhibits were marked during
the hearing: The Record on Appeal in CA G.R. No. 49109R, Exhibit A—Contingent Claim; the decision in
said case, Exhibit B—Contingent Claim; Notice of Judgment attached thereto, Exhibit B-1-Contingent
Claim; Motion for Reconsideration, Exhibit C—Contingent Claim; and Denial of Motion for
Reconsideration, Exhibit D—Contingent Claim. Atty. Navarro, however, asked that the presentation of
the exhibits be made during the next hearing wherein the administratrix shall be given the opportunity
to present rebuttal evidence. Accordingly, the court set the next hearing to October 3, 1974, but was re-
set to November 18, 1974, at the request of the administratrix who said that her lawyer had an urgent
personal engagement in Baguio City on the first setting. On November 18, 1974, the following order was
given in open court: “Counsel for the administratrix is given ten (10) days upon receipt hereof within
which to interpose objection, if any, to the exhibits offered by Atty. Navarro.” From the tenor of the
order which gave Atty. Vitug ten days “upon receipt hereof’ to interpose objection, he did not appear on
November 18, 1974. The record does not show that an objection was ever interposed.

On February 28, 1979, the court held in abeyance the claim of the Manalansans pending the resolution
by this Court of a motion for reconsideration in Manalansan vs. Castañeda, G.R. No. L-43607 which was
decided on June 27, 1978, 83 SCRA 777, on an ancillary question.

On November 12, 1979, the court set the hearing of the contingent claim of the Manalansans on January
28, 1980, but the record does not show that a hearing was actually held on that date.

On October 28, 1980, the Manalansans filed a Motion to Resolve Claim Against the Estate, dated
October 24,1980. Attached to the motion is a Statement of Account stating that the amount of the
deficiency judgment which the ad-

356

356

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The lntestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

ministratrix should be ordered to pay as of November 2,1980, is the sum of P294,298.26. The motion
contained a notice that it would be submitted for the consideration and approval of the court on
November 5, 1980, but the record does not show that it was so considered on that day. In an order
dated November 18, 1980, the court gave the administratrix ten (10) days from receipt to file her
comment on the aforesaid motion. The same order stipulated that, “After the submission of the same
[comment], the instant motion is deemed submitted for resolution.” The record does not show that the
administratrix submitted a comment as required. On January 3, 1981, the court issued the following
order:

“Acting upon the Motion to Resolve claim against the estate filed by the claimants Benito Manalansan
and Ines V. Manalansan dated October 24, 1980, based on the grounds therein stated which the Court
finds to be well-taken, the said claim of P294,298.26 as of November 2, 1980 is hereby approved and
ordered to be paid, pursuant to Section 5. and 11, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court and for failure of the
administratrix to comply with the order of this Court dated November 18,1980."

It was only on January 8,1981, that the administratrix filed an Opposition to Contingent Claim against
Estate. There the administratrix questioned the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the claim “for being
exhorbitant and shocking to the senses and that the same was filed out of time or beyond the
reglementary period provided by law.”

In the meantime, Ines Vitug Manalansan died in a vehicular accident on December 22, 1980, so she was
substituted by her co-claimant Benito Manalansan and their children, namely: Elsa, Gil, Anita, Jesus, Luz
and Martin.

On January 27, 1981, the administratrix filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of January 3,
1981 (which ordered payment of the claim of P294,298.26) on the ground that the claim was
“exhorbitant, shocking to the senses and that the same was filed out of time or beyond the
reglementary period provided by law.”

After an exhange of comments and reply to the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court issued an order,
dated May 30,

357

VOL. 110, DECEMBER 14, 1981

357

The Intestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

1981, as follows: “For lack of merits, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.”

The administratrix now wants Us to review the actuations of the lower court by raising the following
issues:
“I. Can a trial Judge legally and validly consider, take cognizance of and render judgment on a claim filed
against the Estate in an Intestacy Proceeding when said claim was filed outside the period prescribed by
Section 2, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court?

“II. Can a trial Judge adjudicate and render judgment on a contingent claim against the Estate in an
Intestacy Proceeding on the basis merely of the direct testimony of a claimant, such direct testimony not
subjected to the rigid test of cross examination by the adverse party, the documentary evidence or
exhibits presented by the claim in the course of such direct testimony not having been formally offered
nor formally admitted by the Court and such claimant not having formally rested his/her case; and that
the adverse party against whom the claim is being asserted not having had the opportunity to adduce
controverting or rebutting evidence?

“III. Can a claim against the Estate in an Intestacy Proceeding that is not supported by the evidence on
record be awarded?

On the first issue, there is no question that the contingent claim was filed two (2) days beyond the six-
month period stipulated in the order which directed all persons having money claims against the estate
to file them. However, it is to be noted that the claim was filed on June 12, 1974, whereas the timeliness
of its filing was raised only on January 8, 1981, in the Opposition to the Contingent Claim against Estate.
In the interregnum the administratrix had acquiesced to the entertainment of the claim by filing an
answer thereto on July 11, 1974, and again by asking for postponement of the October 3, 1974, hearing
wherein she was to present her rebuttal evidence. She is not only estopped by her conduct but laches
also bar her claim. (See Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29; Rodriguez vs. Court
of Appeals, L29264, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 419.) Moreover, Rule 86, Sec. 2, of the Rules of Court
gives the probate court discretion to allow claims presented beyond the period previously fixed

358

358

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The lntestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

provided that they are filed within one month from the expiration of such period but in no case beyond
the date of entry of the order of distribution. The contingent claim of the Manalansans was filed within
both periods.

The second and third issues are impressed with merit.

True it is that the probate court gave opportunities to the administratrix to contest the contingent claim.
Thus she filed an answer thereto on July 11, 1974; a hearing was held on September 2, 1974, but she did
not appear; the hearing on October 3, 1974 was re-set to November 18, 1974 at her request but she
failed to appear on the latter date; she did not interpose objection to the exhibits offered by the
Manalansans as stipulated in the order of November 18, 1974; and lastly the administratrix was given
ten days within which to file her comment to the Motion to Resolve Claim Against the Estate. These
notwithstanding, We believe that the opportunities given to the administratrix were not ample enough
and do not meet the minimum requirements for due process. On June 12, 1974, when the claim was
filed it amounted to only P98,411.17. However, on January 3, 1981, when the probate court approved
the claim it had ballooned to the enormous amount of P294,298.26. Noteworthy is the fact that the
order approving the claim does not explain how it reached that amount. The probate court should not
have been satisfied with merely asking for objections or comments from the administratrix but it should
have conducted a full dress hearing on the claim by using its coercive powers if necessary.

WHEREFORE, the orders of the court a quo dated January 3, 1981 and May 30, 1981, are hereby set
aside and it is directed to conduct a thorough and full dress hearing on the claim of the private
respondents. No special pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Orders set aside.

359

VOL. 110, DECEMBER 14, 1981

359

The Intestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

Notes.—An executor or administrator is allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management, and
settlement of the estate. (De Guzman vs. De Guzman-Carillo, 83 SCRA 256).

A trial judge should not appoint his clerk of court as administrator of a decedent’s estate. (Vasquez vs.
Malvar, 85 SCRA 10)

The probate court should resolve the issue of ownership of property provisionally as basis for its
inclusion in or exclusion from the inventory. (Balisay vs. Alcid, 85 SCRA 213).

For the court to acquire jurisdiction in a petition for summary settlement of estate, the amount of the
estate should not exceed P10,000.00. (Del Rosario vs. Cunanan, 76 SCRA 136).

When an order of partition of the estate of the deceased becomes final, the appealed decision declaring
that appellee as the legitimate children of the deceased and entitled to the annulment of the institution
of heirs made in the probated will of the latter becomes final and executory likewise and hence the case
on appeal is moot and academic. (Ventura vs. Ventura, 77 SCRA 159).

It is not proper to make a finding in an intestate proceeding that a discovered will has been revoked. A
separate petition for probate of the alleged will should be ordered filed. (Maloto vs. Maloto, 79 SCRA
232).

The testate court should order the deposit of the sum being claimed as inheritance tax or order the sale
of non-cash assets to cover the tax before issuing the order of distribution of decedent’s estate. (Vera
vs. Navarro, 79 SCRA 408).

The probate court may take cognizance of properties under administration provided the interest of third
persons who may be cited to appear in court are not prejudiced. (Sebial vs. Sebial, 64 SCRA 385).

The probate court may approve a project of partition of a parcel of land being claimed by one of the
parties as exclusively his and not part of the decedent’s estate. (Ermac vs. Modelo, 64 SCRA 358).

Testacy is preferable to intestacy. (Balanay, Jr. vs. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452).

360

360

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Intestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino

The amount of the administrator’s fee is a matter largely in the discretion of the probate court. (Sison
vs. Maddela, 67 SCRA 478).

———o0o——— The lntestate Estate of Dominador Danan vs. Buencamino, 110 SCRA 352, No. L-57205
December 14, 1981